|
Vision 2010 scenario-planning seminar in New Orleans
Phase 1 January, 1995 |
|
|
Vision 2010 scenario-planning seminar in New Orleans
Phase 1 January, 1995 |
Vision 2010
Evolution of Scenarios
Summary of Comments and Ideas
Generated by Group 1
New Orleans, January 1995
Establishing the Focus
This phase of the scenario development process identifies the core about which
an understanding of long term consequences is sought. The group formed
several questions that shaped their discussion and helped them derive their
focus.
1. Is the focus on the research university or on higher education?
2. What will the higher learning market (marketplace) look like in the year
2010 and how will institutions respond to it?
3. What is the knowledge business going to look like and are institutions of
higher learning going to continue as distribution channels? The question is
not just of scholarly learning but of knowledge creation and knowledge
dissemination.
4. How do institutions position themselves as leading in the marketplace, a
center on a network for knowledge, learning, discovery; and, how do they
position themselves to be as significant a node as possible on that network?
5. What will be the place of higher education institutions, for example
research universities, in the future market?
6. What is the nature of the transaction? What is the nature of the intention?
What are the things transferred? What are word descriptors of the transaction?
The group then generated the following transaction descriptors
Produced
Discovered
Transmitted
Communicated
Stored
Interpreted
This resulted in their first attempt at a focus statement.
How will knowledge, information and skills be produced, distributed, stored,
discovered, evaluated and protected in the year 2010?
7. What is the role of the university in delivering knowledge? What will
learning and knowledge look like in 2010? Will the process of knowledge and
information be really different? There is a dichotomy between the institution
as institution and on the shape of knowledge; and the dichotomy of learning
and knowledge.
8. What are the implications for finance. Do we pay for it?
The Focus
How, by and for whom will higher knowledge, information, skills and values be
produced, distributed, stored, discovered, evaluated, interpreted, protected
and financed in the year 2010 and what will be the role of higher education.
Comment by participant to facilitator
We're not speaking about this particular collection of verbs, and we've
chosen a particular argumentative strategy which is at variance with the
larger strategy of trying to work with scenarios. Scenarios are
basically the use of dramatic criticism in trying to organize non-
dramatic experience. And that's basically a metaphorical strategy.
...You don't chose a dominant metaphor and then try to increase
experience around it. You try to iterate through a series of adjectives
or verbs the particular kind of focus you want, and if any one of us
feels that our attitude has not been precisely reflected, we add an
adjective there. I don't think that's a very promising way to focus the
question if your doing a basically metaphorical act as we are doing...
Facilitator's response
And I want to agree with you in general, and then push that rule for
this particular occasion because of who we are and the breadth of the
future we're looking at.
Determining Key Factors
This process results in a brainstormed list of critical factors impacting the
focus. Later these will be prioritized and clustered. The actual list of
items and the votes given to each appear in the appendix. The numbers in
parenthesis here correspond to those on the list. Participant discussion is
in italics.
1. Virtual nature of the institution-conceptualizing beyond bricks and mortar
(1, 10, 40)
Implications for the focus transactions
Who are peers, professional colleagues
Who are students
Independence from organizational settings
One of the major effects of the Internet...has been that it allows
people in more isolated contexts to participate actively in intellectual
communities in a way that traditionally you'd participate by being part
of a big strong department in a major university.
How effectively can you aggregate communities and aggregate expertise
and put together the sort of things that are stored in people's heads in
a non-geographically defined way.
The question is can virtual communities be real?
2. End of revenue generation from traditional source (2)
No increase in flexible dollars from government, students and family,
tuition, donors, sale of goods, and services like health care
New sources of income based on 4 major commodities of higher education:
(1) stored knowledge, (2) expert knowledge, (3) discovery, (4)innovation
but very few of which at the moment have income transactions associated
with the content we hold in each of those four commodities.
Faculty members are selling their stored knowledge but the revenues are
not coming back to the institution
3. Intellectual property law and technology (broadly phrased) (3)
4. Recognition of scholarly contribution (4, 8)
Tied to research publication but many other kinds of innovation and
other kinds of knowledge assembly may need to be considered
Promotion
Reward system
Tenure
5. Role of newly emerging markets (5, 35)
more of the new ways of doing things will evolve outside the advanced
societies; three and a half billion people joining the new market
economy. These societies are not constrained by existing organizations
and institutional practices.
Even institutions within US will have differences in ability to adapt
6. Demographics (6)
race, economic level, gender, age, location-independence-global
demographics.
degree of common knowledge among teenagers never before been the case.
7. Departmental or disciplinary boundaries (7)
more and more interesting work will be interdisciplinary.
8. Role of higher education in maturation and values (9)
distinction between our role in transmitting knowledge versus our role
in assisting with maturation and value.
if the universities are not taking care of the seventeen to twenty three
year olds, for example and you get some structures developing that are
not based on contiguity, they're based on some other kind of structure
then what kind of communities are we serving. How do we define
community; where has the community gone?
9. Certification (11)
Traditionally what we do is certify that they have acquired some basic
skills, knowledge, information; that doesn't have to be done by the
university. There are separate exams for certain professions.
Basically a lot of these issues are that the typical institutions have
not recognized differentiation in the way they serve, educate, treat
their customers. They are living in the old model. We now have many
many market niches.
Secondary schools starting to measure outputs, performance evaluations,
student learning outcomes. We're still looking at inputs, how many
credits did you get but measuring outputs is an interesting trend and
has interesting implications for how we decide somebody deserves
certification.
10. Cycle time (12)
Do you need four years to do what we do for an undergraduate?
11. Customization (13)
Do we now have the capacity to customize education at the Individual
level?
How do we deal with entering students highly fluent with technology and
those who have none of that experience?
Customization of product services by age, by learning styles, by types
of intelligence etc.
12. New literacy-new forms of representing knowledge and broadening access
(14, 33) It's the ability of students to deal with information technology and
new categories of technology that allow visual representation to be another
part of intellectual inquiry.
Dependent on the capability to use new forms of electronics.
Let us not be so isolated to our current cultural condition to think
that pictures and visual representations are things you look at that
someone else makes. You need, in fact, if it's going to be a formal
language, to be able to have the ability to create them as well as
understand them. And the skill set to be able to do that is usually
quite orthogonal to the skills set of people who have had formal
education in this country. ...It is indeed another form of reasoning.
How do you gain representational abilities so that you can advance
knowledge and ideas in our culture. And what are the new schools or
classes of training to enable you to do this?
If in fact it is the case that the broadening of modes of learning,
doing, expressing, storing...are going to expand, and that we as
institutions participate, therefore, in a steadily smaller percent of
that, then we become increasingly less relevant to what the world is
doing.
Whether one views the technology as an increasingly better, more complex
way of transmitting knowledge or whether the technology is transforming
the scholarship, the knowledge process itself.
I think that a lot of this discussion has really centered around the
technology not only automating the current practice but also profoundly
changing the nature of knowledge discovery, dissemination. ... That's
not speculation or a prediction but can be demonstrated with an
increasing number of examples.
It is in the work, in the doing--and so going from the distinction
between learning and doing, the co-mingling of learning and doing when
you have the tools to facilitate the reflection in doing.
If this medium is now going to become critical for understanding ideas
and representing knowledge and moving things forward you also have that
research component and having these elements is part of it.
13. The scholarship conundrum; public perception of scholarship (16, 20, 21,
45) As cost of basic research and number of researchers are going up,
perceived value by the public is going down.
A massive devaluation in the public mind of much of the scholarship that
goes on.
Must also include teaching in those perceptions.
Stronger public requirement for accountability.
Its not so much accountability as it is a change in expectations. What
we're being held accountable for is responding to expectations that seem
to be changing not overnight but they are changing. And its coming at
us from the political direction as much as any other.
Consumerism-value for money.
Cost of technology and are we going to be able to afford it. It's
capability and cost and what we will be able to afford. not only what
will be possible.
Cost-effectiveness translated into a lot of short-term and applied
objectives in our society especially now with the threats to cut major
segments of research budgets, not just direct costs, but whole
initiatives, programs, because they are too long-range or too basic.
You really have a move toward short term results and lose the ability to
support the long term scholarly activities and research that society in
a sense has a mood of impatience toward.
14. Institutional resilience, adaptability and flexibility (22, 23, 26, 28)
Institutional adaptability--a lot of our constraints in thinking about what
can be done with the new technology is constrained by our current
institutional settings.
Institutions for higher education, many of them are slow adapters, slow
changers, sitting in an environment with rapid and ever-increasing rates
of change so there is a mismatch. The organizational structure and
design and culture are such that change and resistance of change is
inherent characteristic, an inherent design parameter of the institution
itself.
The educational needs of the year 2000 will be satisfied mainly by
institutions that can change rapidly.
The spirit of individualism could be worked positively or negatively
depending on how one sets up the incentive structures to draw from that
spirit of individualism. Ability to change incentive systems may be a
key primer.
Universities have enormous capacity for survival but they change very
differently. They change because of individual faculty members'--
individuality. They experiment at the margin..and its a very different
process of change than masterminding change from the top....What this
new technology produces is a different problem for individuals to
change, that is we need a fundamental infrastructure that is very
expensive to build and that is why the discussion is what to do top
down. I do not believe I need someone to tell me how to teach my class.
What I need is the infrastructure that facilitates me to experiment at
the margin.
You're going to have a traditional instructional staff, you'll probably
want it, but you need a very different cadre of program producers,
graphic designers, curriculum developers. You have to go back to the
issue--what is the nature of the curriculum. How do you make the
structural change in the institutional setting?
Faculty and staff will mix in all kinds of new ways with new skill
requirements.
It takes a team to try to create one of these multimedia enterprises. It
takes a single professor to create a course now. On the other hand, it
takes two hundred physicists to do a high energy physics experiment with
a varied diverse skill mix. We're not completely apart on this team
approach but what happens to teaching when an individual scholar, an
individual teacher can no longer say "I am a teacher" I can do this
myself.
Who is going to teach the teachers? I agree with the idea that you want
to have a community, obviously that's what a university is all about or
a college or whatever from a practical standpoint the creators of this
material are going to have to come from the graduate ranks or are going
to have to come from the kids themselves because they are much more at
ease with technology and that's a problem throughout education.
15. Elitism of present educational system (24, 18, 25, 43)
Currently knowledge representation is through print (books); emergence
of the multimedia signal is itself a radical act of democratization..
The very form of accomplishment and learning that this provides is going
to change the way people learn and think and contribute and participate
in the creation of knowledge, in the generation of knowledge.
One of the big revolutions here is not so much whether the technology
itself is affordable and whether people use it or not, although these
are important considerations, the form itself frees people from only one
way of accessing knowledge. It allows people many more degrees of
freedom and choice.
I'm not talking about whether we have done good things by educating poor
people, women and so on. I'm talking about elitism of people who learn
in a certain way intellectually. I'm basically arguing that the new
form allows for multiple ways of learning, which is not text-based,
which is not symbolic, logic-based, and its a different kind of
reasoning process that can take place today that was not possible
before.
Elitism is the wrong word..wrong connotation. It is a much broader
choice of representation and modes for people to participate in the
knowledge enterprise.
Knowledge is viewed still as basically deconceptualized, disembodied
things represented in multiple forms that we worship or propagate. We
shouldn't overlook the fact that beyond the cognitive there is also the
social. That is to say that probably learning is as much social as
cognitive. That learning is an acculturation in multiple or single
communities of practice.....Which is why lifelong learning leads to the
fact that learning all the time in the workplace and on the streets and,
in fact, that kids that drop out of school learn much more complicated
phenomena on the streets than in the classrooms. They are phenomenal
learners because learning is social....There's not one audience. We're
talking about something that is both cognitive and social. That
interplay, through action, is critical.
The sense of participation as learning, fundamentally an act, puts
quite a different cast on the role of the classroom. Actually happens
in lifelong learning through the social participation and acculturation
and now we have a new class of technologies that can support that.
That's what simulations are--this whole range of simulations is the
radical dramatization of conceptual thought.
We say we we're breaking down barriers, whether its convergence of media
or removing space and time obstacles, but it seems to me we have to be
concerned with building up of elitism. That is the building up of two
cultures., those who have access and participate and those who do not.
16. Privatization of knowledge (27)
Decades if not centuries of knowledge as a public good but here to 2010
that will change a fair amount.
Limitations of accumulating, storing, scholarship
Implications of intellectual property and patent law
17. Competitors (29, 30, 31, 32)
Home learning
Industrial apprentices
Corporations taking on role of training employees themselves
We've got a very complicated confusion here between learning in the
sense of teaching very generalized problem solving skills, intellectual
curiosity, and much more task oriented or competence-oriented learning
to do specific things. As soon as you get into that competence-oriented
learning there are tons of competitors out there. Software companies
So another way of looking at it is that the competition is an increasing
perception on the part of the public that skills training is going to be
valued higher than the kind of education and learning model we
traditionally offer. For profit businesses established by colleges and
universities
Segments of higher education competing against other segments
Opportunities for small entrepreneurships and small lighter-weight
organizations to go out there....and compete with us.
Universities have certification, standards and reputation. There isn't
a good competitor in terms of certification at the moment.
We're all assuming a very benign macro-economic environment and social
environment. What happens if knowledge production reverts to ten to
fifteen percent of the world's population? And ten or fifteen percent
of the world's population makes, designs, generates stuff for the rest.
What happens to education in the world?
18. Popular culture (36)
A real opportunity for education to be fun.
20. Political climate and priorities (44)
Few in each party that are future-oriented technophile voices
Budgets of most states are now committed to crime and education.
Change proposed to reimbursement of indirect costs in universities that
perform research.
Direction of public institutions by state legislatures
21. De-institutionalization (46)
Impatience with heavy duty institutions..whether universities,
government or big companies. There is a feeling that we need to get
smaller units of action that are somehow more responsive and more
capable.
22. Values (47)
As I look at college campuses, it is not clear to me that without higher
education we can maintain a civil society. As the different peoples
come together in a political climate that tends to be nationalistic and
xenophobic unless we have institutions in which those young people
particularly learn together and learn to value one another beyond the
stereotypical boundaries of race, class and nationality, we will have a
society that can't absorb.
What are the values that we really believe higher education can serve?
23. Religious Fundamentalism (48)
24. Socialization of technology--Decay of the Middle Style (50)
Translation of technology into terms and language for which there exists
or develops a common understanding. That means transcending a
particular set of professional languages that we conduct business in
now.
25. National security and terrorism (52)
As we build these networks and as we build this national enterprise of a
national community their [the defense department] perception was that
the national security threat was increasing every day that the network
was expanding because there were ways for the enemies of the state...to
move combat and aggressiveness away from physicalness into this arena.
26. Standards (53)
They're a twelve billion dollar corporation in Seoul [and what they
perceive is that] the whole future of what they see as the multimedia
universe will be driven by the establishment and control of standards.
Who has them, who controls them and so forth.
27. Changes in K-12 (54)
Have to make some alternate assumptions as to what happens to K-12 in
the next fifteen years in terms of how it impacts on the real world of
higher education.
Developing the focal matrix
As a result of the prioritization and clustering of the critical factors, the
group is able to identify two axes defining quadrants around which the
scenarios will be developed.
Clustering process
...There are a number of issues that cast over the have and have-nots
which is to do with what is public education and who pays for it?
Limited traditional funding, the public requirement for accountability,
what I'm getting at here is education a public good that everybody
gets...versus something that twenty percent of the people get and
everybody gets something else? That is there's a question about who
gets education, who pays for it, do we value it, is it skills training?
I look at popular culture and new expectations on one side and even
though it didn't get a lot of votes I like to look at religion,
fundamentalism, security threats, and funding on the other side as
likely forces that will impede change And I think we may be
underestimating fundamentalism around the world and what may be the
implications for it. And I also think security threats are
underestimated in this open society where any small group can create
enormous havoc.
One way to cut this is supply versus demand....Do we have the skills,
what is it, whose going to pay for it. ...the other thing is demand.
Which is what do people want, how are people going to use it within the
university?
I think literacy is an obvious axis...but I'd like to call it the old
literacy and the new literacy just as a kind of code word for all those
things that are in the new literacy, and I think we know what the old
literacy is.
I've found popular culture interesting because it may be decided that
there's a new literacy in the popular culture but in fact the old
literacy trotting through the higher education system.
It could be that if the old literacy is hard to acquire, then it is
useful. ..It is true that people who have college degrees make a
million dollars more than people who don't over a lifetime. So the
point is that there are skills that are rewarded and there are skills
that are much less rewarded. Driving a car is a complex skill but not
valued because everyone can do it. [ Going to college may become the
same.]
You're clustering what I would call enablers which is going to enhance
our ability to go to whatever the new literacy is. And some of them
might be impediments....Literacy is going to change whether we like it
or not. It's not either/or. Nothing is totally text right now. So I
don't see that axis at all. What I see is what are the enablers and what
are the impediments. And then I can deal with it, rather than what are
likely outcomes. Some of them are likely outcomes, and I think we are
looking at outcomes and enablers all in the same fashion. At least
that's the question I have in my own mind. I see popular culture, home
learning as sort of enablers. Deinstitutionalization may be a result of
this. But it's not clear to me that we start with
deinstitutionalization. It happens if these things happen. So I look
at popular culture as an enabler. It prepares people for a different
way to interact. I look at religion as just the opposite.
The interesting axis might not be the extent to which information is
digital but the extent to which the fact that information is digital
changes the way we learn, we organize and teach. Could these new
technologies really summon up a change in the way we learn and research
and relate. Or do we just think that we could do everything the way we
do now only faster and easier?
I want to talk a little bit about this dimension of competition. When
you look at all the items on that list, they're all competitive
suppliers of learning and teaching and information. But there's another
dimension of competition..which relates to those incentives, teams,
certification and organizational structure and that's the competition
for the factors of production. See university administrators think that
they provide learning but with the faculty, oh no, that we provide
learning. We write textbooks. We have this great audience far outside
the textbooks and books that people used to learn. And the university,
I think, somewhat naively believes that they can go to the faculty
members and say let's produce this multi media project. The faculty are
going to talk to Time-Warner, McGraw-Hill and all those other people
over here on this list who also want to use their equipment. So the
university isn't going to have to compete only for the students, they're
going to have to compete for the faculty.
Competition is not about dollars in my mind. Competition is competing
with other organizations that have values that are similar to ours and
may in fact ultimately determine how those values get delivered in
society. And I don't see that as a dollar issue although dollars are
certainly involved.
I'd prefer to use the X axis as the sociology of learning and knowledge
because I think what we are getting carried away in the multi media part
is not the virtual community, the idea of what is a new sociology
through which knowledge is produced, assimilated and so on. So if you
look at it not as print and paper and digital and visual but the nature
of the transaction and the exchange mechanisms and the knowledge
creation mechanisms. What I think everyone is saying is the digital
visual wall is going to create new forms of community, new forms of
learning, brickless, mortarless, the ability to engage in new kinds of
exchange. So I think of that as the sociology of learning. And that's
an evolutionary process, it's not either/or, it's an effect of how much
and in what proportions of higher education is going to be where. The
second axis when we talk about competition I'm somewhat worried whether
we are coming from a fairly defensive notion of trying to defend the
existing mechanisms. As a faculty member I couldn't care whether the
university exists in its current form or not. I would care very much
about how I would participate in the knowledge creation process. To me
the real question is is there a role for the institution as we know it
today? Maybe the university may be an impeding mechanism rather than a
supporting mechanism for this new way of learning.
As an economist, I want to look at where the scarcity is because I know
that things that are scarce end up with a high value typically. And
everybody I think will agree that popular culture and media are going to
be more unstructured, more hypertextual, more pictures. But then what
that means is that the other side, the linear, the structured, the
quantified, is gong to be scarce. So the institution that provides
linear, quantified, structured material can be in fact a very good
market niche.
The learning industries if you will are getting much broader and
diversified. How much of the broadening spectrum of the learning and
knowledge industry is the university planning to cover for its own.
I tried four quadrants where you have on the X axis classical literacy
and new literacy and on the y axis at the bottom classic institutions
and on the top, virtual. There's a lot of evolutionary space or lots of
space for the survival of institutions in any of these quadrants.
Different types of institutions can survive in different quadrants.
Many of the things we're talking about are the environmental factors
that will select the institutions for survival in these various
quadrants. That is money, resources, a number of things. And each
institution will evolve a little bit differently based on those
environmental factors.
It's not institution versus virtual, its education as civic, valued,
public, accessible, supportive. Does society value its evolving into a
private producer for money education or does it value its evolution into
a civic good. So the axis is more social legitimacy than existing
institution, virtual institution.
The Quadrants
As a result of the discussion, the group agreed upon these quadrants:
High Competition
|
4 | 1
|
------------------------------
|
3 | 2
|
Old Literacy | New Literacy
University
Monopoly
Development of Scenarios
By creating newspaper headlines relevant for 1995-2000, 2000-2005 and
2005-2110, the group begins to develop a scenario for Quadrant 1. Small teams
form to follow this process for all quadrants.
Quadrant 1
1995-2000
1. Privatization of databases- Bill Gates buys rights to Metropolitan Museum
of Art.
2. Math program halves the time it takes for a student to learn calculus.
3. Dolby releases $50 package for home video editing and composing.
4. Library of Congress decides to digitize massive amounts of its non-
copyrighted holdings and release them to the public domain.
5. Richard Lanham self-publishes book on the net.
2000-2005
1. State of Idaho gives tax credit, tax dollars for home schools
2. Computer virus is announced that destroys all home systems.
3. Successful debugging emerges.
4. Court case is brought to institute competency-based certification in
medicine and other fields. No longer do you have to go to medical school.
Instead you have to diagnose this automated cadaver.
5. Commercial law school receives accreditation.
6. International university consortium pulls past both Microsoft and Xerox in
the competitive race to digitize the worlds museums.
7. RPI's elementary physics course takes 80% market share; number of physics
faculty cut in half.
8. University professorship awarded for interdisciplinary multimedia product.
9. Microsoft endows Nobel Prize in multimedia education.
10. CD-ROM on life of Mohammed declared blasphemous.
11. Average undergraduate graduates in three and a half years.
12.Big ten libraries merge; single library
13. Motorola-Apple University dominate multimedia education environment.
14. Nation of Islam dominates education.
15. American Physics Society opens its own graduate university
16. Three interactive comic books on New York Times best seller list.
2005-2110
1. Nation of Islam provides 25% of graduate degrees worldwide.
2. American Physics Society forms own postgraduate university with research
laboratories at eight places around the world.
3. Fastest growing industry is computer-based competency testing which is sold
to employers to try to figure out what people know. There is a view that
there will soon be a consumer market for this.
4. State of Tennessee closes universities and purchases its educational
services from a university consortium located elsewhere.
5. University of X has an enrollment of 100,000; only 25,000 on traditional
campus.
Matrix Development
Four small groups developed headlines that they felt could appear during each
time frame for the quadrant they represented. Each group also created a name
to describe its quadrant..
Group 1 High competition, High new literacy Knowledge Runner
1995-2000
1. Shifts in the way new knowledge is created
a. Major research prize awarded to someone not affiliated with the university
b. More research grounded in practice. practitioners/customers as parties in
distributed research teams. c. Those without need to "unlearn" leap ahead with
new methods (e.g. China) 2. Funding crisis for universities deepens
3. Privatization of databases
4. Plug and play video competition
5. Software available for many courses
6. massive scanning by Library of Congress
Enablers
a. U.S. announces total voucher system for education
b. Widespread adoption and access to ATM (symmetric)
c. Digital cash has been created
d. Multiple forms of commerce net (infrastructure for knowledge economy) e.
Research funding based on outcome
f. National endowment for the arts funded equal to NSF;massive investment in
NEA. g. More heterogeneity of schools (learning environments) wild and woolly
mass market Results
a. Widening fragmentation/fractionating
b New certification process
c. High school students are colleagues with UM and Ford Sci Lab in
environmental research prize. d. Professors mentoring junior researchers
world-wide on a for-fee basis. On-line person, data, tools (with meter
running) e. 80% of students engaged in cognitive apprenticeships
f. Librarian of congress sued for information malpractice; enhanced
accountability g. More apprenticeship on an individual basis.
h. Corporate domination
i. Public support of education drops
j. Edutainment really starts to work
k. Commerce net up-now anyone can take part
l. Further change in knowledge economy; universities become more
specialized m. Certification of source (teacher); selection of teacher
is based on past performance Health care is factoring selection process
out as too expensive Certification by faculty rather than university
(e.g. employer select based on courses taken from star faculty. n.
Certification of student
o. Maturation/socialization services-4 years on campus
p. Harvard wins Rose Bowl but also "SR Net" services
2000-2005
1. Tax dollars for home schools
2. Debugging of viruses
3. Court case on credentialing
4. Virtual law school accrediting
5. International university consortium; digitized museums
6. RPI physics ups share-other physics departments halved
7. Endowed chairs in multimedia interdisciplinary
8. Microsoft has Nobel winner
9. Ads for alternatives in education
10. Undergraduates graduate in 3 1/2 years
2005-2010
1. Pooling of resources by major universities
2. Elsevier bankrupt
3. Motorola/Apple University gains marketshare
4. Nation of Islam provides 25% graduate degrees
5. ARS forms own postgraduate university with 8 research sites
6. Computer based competency testing a growing industry
7. Tennessee contracts out higher education
8. U of X has 75,000 off campus students
Group 2 Traditional approach-High competition-university fail Old wine in
fewer new bottles
1995-2000
1. Faculty denied tenure for multimedia work
2. Disciplines solidified; multimedia still outside basic academic process 3.
Certification and apprenticeship core activities; considered by faculty the
heart of the university 4. Curriculum still book-based; library system moves
in digital direction 5. Elite universities survive; lesser institutions have
financial problems; mergers and acquisitions become common 6. Building contact
networks (old-boy relationships) sold by university as significant reason to
attend their particular institution. 7. Kinkos does digital distribution of
course packs
2000-2005
1. Smaller 4yr colleges either die or merge
2. Professor as celebrity- brand franchising. Richard Lanham and C.K. Praalad
sign Nike contracts. The video professor 3. Yr 2000, Harvard president
reaffirms tenure.
4. More digital components in instruction but literacy culture persists not
heavily interactive; canned video
5. Business starts assuming more educational training function.
2005-2010
1. Business schools compete with consultants
2. Corporations leading cognition studies
3. 4yr colleges return to their 19th century values and ethnicity; religious
colleges popular 4. Microsoft University and McDonalds University
5. Research and instruction split
6. Opportunities for some scholars to use new technology for research
7. Decline of the middle; the academic is either star or drone. Fewer
graduates 8. Primary, secondary, tertiary care model
Group 3 Old tradition-University Monopoly Survival of the fittest
1995-2000
1. Cal State Northridge forms joint teaching/learning center with five school
districts. 2. Georgia sets productivity requirements for academic departments
3. Cleveland State requires 15 years employment experience for admission 4.
Pac 10 schools form joint East Asian program
5. Texas El Paso requires bi-lingual instruction and open enrollment with Free
University of Mexico 6. State of Nebraska mandates year round university
operations
7. State university X announces 3yr degree program for all undergraduates
2000-2005
1. Miami of Ohio announces end of the traditional classroom. Group learning
community 2. University establishes life-long learning contract
3. Parent coop puts credit hour tuition out for bids. (Low bidder wins) 4,
Minnesota legislature requires college based leadership and service programs
at all state universities. (Tuition benefit) 5. Major university closes. 25
colleges merge
6. CSU and CU libraries merge
7. Texas El Paso requires bi-lingual instruction and open enrollment with Free
University of Mexico
2005-2010
1. Yale requires perfect SAT score
2. Supreme court upholds decision to deny accreditation to Microsoft
University 3. BU announces K-14 accelerated program in new college
4. UCLA bruins become farm team to 49ers, receive millions per year
5. Stanford earns $500m in Intellectual property income
6. Carnegie Mellon eliminates undergraduate programs; creates research, tech
transfer clusters
Group 4 University Survives-new literacy
1995-2000
1. Maricopa steps up
2. Big 10 announces common library
3. Pac 8 contracts to deliver undergraduate curriculum world-wide
4. Commission based compensation for faculty
2000-2005
1. Ivies struggle with insolvency
2. Microsoft in negotiations with Nobelists for virtual university
3. National University of Singapore and Michigan in competition for Shanghai
market
2005-2010
1. Microsoft contracts with Ivy consortium as primary supplier of educational
software 2. Three novelists move to Maricopa
3. Harvard President's office get email
4. Electronically connected residential colleges
5. Agile providers of unique expertise
6. Signing and representing the stars
7. Outsourcing of lab and working space
Group 1 High competition, High new literacy Knowledge Runner
Refinement and strategy
1. Infrastructure
Information, data, knowledge
Communication & Collaboration
Production facilities
Physical world services
Strategies
1. No Scope Inc.
a. Immediately reduce salaries 50% and add bonus based on revenue generation
b. Give Madonna MBA
c. Merge CS, SILS, Bus Ad
d. Get into knowledge filtering/warranting business-branded knowledge for a
fee e. Strategic alliances with AOL and Sony
AOL=Sabre system model of their content first
Grab intellectual property of Sony
f. $1mil prize for best teacher based on revenue draw
$1mil to best course
sell humanities departments
Note: If you are in this quadrant, you must be the first. Timing is critical
Group 2 Traditional approach-High competition-university fail Old wine in
fewer new bottles Refinement and strategy
1. Technology investments can only be afforded by a small base of users 2.
Enrollments in traditional institutions continue to decline; tuition continues
to rise 3. In some institutions an extraordinary emphasis on very high
quality, very intense instruction 4. Industry associations certify
5. K-12 doesn't get fixed;fewer and fewer people qualified or interested in
classical education programs
Strategies
1. Selective; emphasize niche
a. smaller
b. strengths
c. quality
d. elite
e. social elite (human networking experience)
2. Executive MBA etc.-people targeted to be winners
3. Other side of baby boom
a. intellectual vs. vocational emphasis for retiring people
b. more comfortable with traditional delivery expectations; leisure
content focus 4. Rigorous analytical thinkers-key question is how to
compete without multimedia which competitors have) Return to the past 5.
Be clear about niche and focus resources there; don't try to be all
things to all people Notes:
1. One way to compete with pop culture is to train people for pop culture
2. This quadrant penalizes you for being too successful; you can't leverage
for teaching large numbers of people. 3. Alternative realities-does the public
or employers accept Elvis Presley U, the LA College of liberal arts (BA:
Astrology) 4. Does certification become more objective/skills based rather
than equal institution 5. Liberal arts as a foundation for the professions is
harder and harder to justify. In 2010 Universities strive to make this
case...Do they succeed? 6. Political surprise possibilities
a. No federal aid to education-exaggerates all trends
b. Political correctness issues fade-helps traditions come back
c. more fragmentation-religious colleges return
d. privatization of information encourages fragmentation; perhaps
government supported research controls loosened
Group 3 Old tradition-University Monopoly Survival of the fittest Refinement
and strategy
Summary-Educational Darwinism
1. Niche adaptation
2. Cost constraints
3. Effectiveness
4. Alliance building
5. Selective downsizing
6. Building on strengths
7. Rise of consumerism
Strategy
(assuming need a vision and moving people with rewards; governance structures
an issue) 1. Create strategic scanning ability-not only looking at other
universities but at other institutions 2. Create strategic vision
a. external constituents
b. participating on campus with a governing board
3. Capitalize change-empower chief executive; discretionary resources
4. Create flexible reward system; form strategic alliances
Group 4 University Survives-new literacy Refinement and strategy
Refinement
1. The "smart drug" radical innovation in learning technology-what does that
do 2. The modular residential experience
3. Accessible infrastructure
4. Enabling partnerships for:
a. production
b. marketing
need partnerships with publishers, software companies etc.
5. Intellectual property reform
6. Performance based compensation with appropriate incentives
7. Redefine tenure
8. joint-venturing and consortial agreements especially for liberal arts
colleges Where is the pop culture;universities have dealt with this before and
adapted
APPENDIX
Key Factors and Environmental Forces
The headings for the key factors and environmental forces appear here exactly
as they were listed by the facilitator during the brainstorming session. The
numbers in parenthesis indicate the votes given to the item as the group
considered their significance and likelihood of occurring.
1. Bricks and Mortar vs. Virtual: not just time and place but institutional.
(28) 2. Limits of traditional funding (23)
3. Intellectual property rights (27)
4. Reward system (2)
5. Role of newly emerging markets (6)
6. Demographics by culture and age (21)
7. Departmental/disciplinary boundaries (5)
8. Tenure (1)
9. Enabling maturation (1)
10. Physical definition of community (6)
11. Certification/credentialing (18)
12. "Cycle time"-4 years (3)
13. Customization of product/service by age, by learning styles, by type of
intelligence. (17) 14. New forms of representing knowledge--broadening access
(14)
15. Different levels of fluency and literacy in new media (7)
16. Research conundrum: costs going up, perceived value going down. (7) 17.
Public perception of scholarship (14)
18. Broader set of educational choices (10)
19. Motivation (1)
20. Public requirement for accountability (7)
21. Cost of technology (13)
22. Resistance to change: rhythms of change in society faster,
autonomy/individualism, incentive system (19) 23. Resilience of the university
(1)
24. Narrow elitism/pluralism/democracy/ as related to verbal/analytic skills
as opposed to visual/image skills. (6) 25. Social dimension of learning (7)
26. Curriculum (5)
27. Privatization of knowledge/IPR (5)
28. Limits of growth in storage (0)
29. Home learning (3)
30. Industrial apprenticeships (0)
31. Competition from software companies (8)
32. Trend from liberal education toward skills training (9)
33. From learning-distinct from doing- to Doing as learning (7)
34. Sense of urgency and potential for crisis (0)
35. Other nations as competitors (0)
36. Popular culture as "supplier" and influencer: convergence of education and
entertainment. (35) 37. Competing certification (2)
38. Skills required for new media (19)
39. Solo performance/team efforts (4)
40. Cyber community/ virtual community (8)
41. Primary care educator (8)
42. New skills to learn (10)
43. From have/have nots to know/know nots (34)
44. Political influence (political funding) (22)
45. Short term expectations (0)
46. Deinstitutionalization of learning (18)
47. Higher education and a civil society (12)
48. Religion, fundamentalism (3)
49. Wars, the draft (0)
50. Decay of the middle style (4)
51. Nation state-cultures (0)
52. Security threats (0)
53. Standards (10)
54. Changes in K-12 as supplier (16)
Key Factors Clustered
Using conceptual association and number of votes received, the group
determined that three clusters emerged from the key factors and environmental
forces.
1. Competition
Certification
Popular culture
Home learning
De-institutionalization
Other nations
Broader choices
2. Individual
Haves/have nots vs know/know nots
Demographics
Customization
3. Community
Bricks and mortar to virtual
Cyber community
Physical community
2
